That was the aim of the U.G.K. Sabha who initiated the reform more than fifty years ago. Since then the reform of the poetic dialect has been mainly identified with Visandhi. The fifth resolution of the 6th September last of the Telugu Composition Committee which was moved by Mr. V. Venkataraya Sastry and seconded by Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu legalizes violation of sandhi with the express condition, “that care should be taken to see that in this respect the written sentence approximated as nearly as possible to spoken speech.”
149. If the language to be used in composition was to be as indicated in the second resolution, a blend of literary and spoken forms, the condition in the fifth resolution which I italicized in the preceding para was right and intelligible. Any rational blend must be based on the phonology of modern Telugu. But if as Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu said and his school understand it, the language of prose composition were to be the traditional Kavya dialect, it would be absurd and comical to divest it of its characteristic phonology and to impose upon it the phonology of modern Telugu. The same phonetic laws are not always in operation in a language or a group of languages. The phonetic laws which are in operation in one period are sometimes replaced by another set of phonetic laws in another period.
OTHER DEVIATIONS FROM TRADITION
150. The Neo-Kavya school also effected other deviations from tradition. The average writer violates the grammar of the poetic dialect and of Sanskrit generally from sheer ignorance, and cuffent Neo-Kavya prose has no claim to be styled as Mr. K.V. Lakshmana Row styles it, grammatical. It is essentially ungrammatical.
151. I shall only note a few deviations from tradition made by Mr. K. Veeresalingam Pantulu, the leader of the school. Mr. J.
